F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT Jun e 20 , 2 006 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

N o. 06- 1004 2 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- D . C. D oc ke t N o. 05- 0013 8- CR -0 02 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,

ve rs us JEREM Y DEWAYNE NIEWALD, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - Appeal f rom the United State s District Court for the Southern D istrict of Ala bam a

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

(J un e 20, 200 6) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, A N D E RS O N and B IR CH , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:De fe nd ant’ s c on sti tut ion a l argume nt rests on th e S ixth A me ndme nt c a se s th at c ulm inate d in 1 Booke r, consider ed in the lig ht of the F ifth Amendment Due Process right to proof beyond a rea sonable doubt as r ecognized in I n re Winship, 90 S.C t. 1068, 1071-73 (1970). 2 D ef en dant- Appe llant J er em

y D ew ay ne N ie w al d a

ppe al s th e fi ve -m onth pr iso n se nte nc e im

pose d up on h is c onvi ct ionf or m ai l the ft , in vio la tio n of 18 U . S. C. § 17 08, a ft er

he ple d gu ilty

w ith out aple a ag re em en t. N o r ev er sib le e rr or h a s b e e n s h o w n ; w e a f

f i rm. De fendant challenges the district court’ s application o f a six-level e n h an c e men tu n d e r

U. S . S . G . 2 B 1 . 1 ( b ) ( 2 ) ( C ) up o n th e c o u rt ’s f i n d i n g b y a preponderance of the evidence that his crim inal activity invol ved 250 or m ore victim s. D efendant asserts a tw o-part challenge: he fir st argues that a bey ond-are as ona ble -d oubt standard of pr oof sho uld have appl ie d to c ont es te d f ac ts u se d to supp ort an in cr ea se in the se nte nc e im pose d; h e ne xt arg ue s th at the r ec or d is w an tin g to sa tis fy

e ve n apr ep onde ranc e of the e vid en ce standard . W e se e no m er it in the se c ha lle nge s. About the standard of proof applicable to a U. S. S. G. § 2B1.1(b)(2)( C) enhanc em en t, D ef

en dant arg ue s th at

pos t- Bo oke r, U nit ed

S ta te s v. Bo oke r, 125 S. Ct . 738 ( 2005 ), the gov er nm en t’ s burd enis be y ond a re as ona ble doubt. 1 A cc or din g to D ef

en dant, the be y ond- a- re as ona ble -d oubt standard de ri ve s f ro m the Co nst itu tio n; and D ef

en dant a lso c ont en ds tha t, und er the doc tr ine of3

“ constitu tional avoi dance,” this Court sho uld avoi d the difficult constit ution al iss ue of w he the r the r ea sona

ble doubt s tandard

is co nst itu tio na lly

m an da te d and ap pl y th atst an da rdas am at te r of st atut ory co ns tru ct io n o r jud ic ia l d is cret io n. O ur pos t- Bo oke r ca se s r ef

le ct no c hange to the standard of pr oof appl ic ab le to sentencing enhancem ents. Pr ovid ed the district court applies the gu idelines as advisory , nothing in Booker restric ts the sentencing court from m aking factual fi ndi ngs unde r a pr ep onde ranc e- of -the -e vid en ce standard . S ee U nit ed S ta te s v. N diay e, 434 F . 3d 1 270, 130 0 ( 11 Ci r. 200 6) ( “ w he n ade fe ndant c ha lle nge s a th fa ct ua l ba sis of

his se nte nc e, the gov er

nm en t ha s th e bur de n of

e sta bli shi ng the dis put ed f ac t by apr ep onde ranc e of

the e vid en ce ”) ; U nit ed

S ta te s v. Ch au , 426 F. 3d 1 318, 132 3- 24 ( 11 Ci r. 200 5) ( af fi rm ing se nte nc e ba se d onj udi ci al f ind ing s th of fac t by a preponderance of

the evidence standard because the guidelines were ap pli ed in ana dvi sor

y w ay ), U nit ed

S ta te s v. Ro dr igu ez , 398 F . 3d 1 291, 129 6 (11 Cir. ), cert. denied, 125 S.Ct. 2935 (2005) (for purposes of guidelin e sentence th ca lc ulatio n, gov er

nm en t be ar s burd enof

e sta bli shi ng d isp ute d f

ac t by pr ep on de ran ce o f th e ev id en ce). D e f e n d an ta l s o mai n t a i n s th a tth e g o v e rn men tf a i l e dt o s h o wb y a preponderance of the evidence that his offense a ctivity invol ved 250 or m ore vic tim s. T he se nte nc ing gui de lin es pr ovi de asix -l ev el inc re as e w he n th e m ai lThe district cour t considere d the threshold number of 250 to be “

just barely

five pe rce nt of the 2 four thousand a

partment boxes that were broken into.” 4 the ft of fe nse inv olv es 250 or

m or e vic tim s. U . S. S. G . § 2B . 1. 1( b) (2 )( C) and the com m entary to § 2B1.1 define victim to includ e “ any

person who wa s the intended re ci pie nt, or

a ddr es se e, of

the und el ive re d U nit ed

S ta te s m ai l. ” U . S. S. G . § 2B 1. 1, co m m en t. n .4(C )(i ). T he gui de lin es a lso pr ovi de a“ spe ci al r ule ” cr eatin g apr es um

pti on ap pli ca ble to the de te rm inatio n of the num be r of vic tim s of

und el ive re d m ai l: Ahou sin g un it cl ust er

box or any sim ilar re ce pta cl e that c ont ai ns m ultip le m ailboxes, whether such receptacle is owned by the United States Postal Se rvice or otherw ise owned, shall, unless proven o th e rw i s e , b e p r e s u me dt o h a v e i n v o l v e dth e nu mb e r o f v i c t i ms co rr es pond ing to the num be r of m ai lbo xe s ine ac h c lus te r box or sim ilar re ceptacle. U. S. S. G. § 2B1.1, c omm ent n.4(C) (ii)(I I). Apply ing th e presum ption , the district court determ ined that 25 0 m ailboxes was but a very sm all portion o f the total num be r of m ai lbo xe s a cc es se d by

D ef en dant and h is c o- de fe ndants . D ef en dant 2 co m pla ins that the pos ta l i nspe ct or w as una ble to co nf

irm that the num

be r of victim s was nec essarily

equal to the num

ber of m ailboxes; in deed, the postal inspector said sp ecifica lly that he had no way

of knowing from

which m ailboxes m ail wa s stolen. And D efendant argues further that the com

plaints received -- unde r 50 f

ro m apartm en t c om

ple x r es ide nts and a

bout 100 f ro m r ur al r es ide nts of5

w es t M obi le - - w er e not

inv es tig at ed

f ull y to de te rm ine w he the r the c om pla inant was a “ vi ct im ,” an d, i n a ny even t, t he nu m be r of co m pl ai nt s fe ll far s ho rt o f 25 0. The specia l rule for victim enhancem ent for offe nses inv olvin g United States m ail wa s created because of

(i) the unique proof problem s often attendant to su ch of fe nse s, ( ii) the f

re que ntl y sig nif ic an t, but dif fi cu lt to quanti fy , non -m one tary

los se s insuc h of

fe nse s, and ( iii ) the im portance of m aintaining the integrity of the U nited St at es m ai l. U. S. S. G. app. C, Am endm ent 617. De fendant’ s protestation s to the contrary notwithstand ing, ref

erence to the post al inspector’ s testim ony provides no rebuttal of the presum

ption set out in th e special rule. T he testim ony underscores the need fo r th e sp eci al rul e. The m ai l t he ft o ffen se oft en elu de s p reci se qu an ti fic at io n. No re versible error has been shown in the appli cation of the six-level sentencing enh ancem ent under U. S. S. G. 2B1.1(b)( 2)(C) . AFFIR MED.